You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Dear forum members,
Eupedia moved to a new server last week. If the forum tells you that the page has unsafe scripts, or if anything doesn't work properly on the forum, just clear your browser cache and cookies and everything should go back to normal.

Although the news has not yet transcended the public

Although the news has not yet transcended the public, scientists have examined the issue and have little doubt, if any, that the Swedish Academy made two serious mistakes in granting the Nobel prize in 1952 and 2011. Nearly 60 years separate them, but there are both the modus operandi - ignore the discoverer to reward your head - as the motive for the crime: both errors affect critical issues not only for science but also for the industry. I have told you always follow the money trail, Watson.

The last Nobel Prize in Medicine was awarded to the French immunologist Jules Hoffmann and two colleagues to discover how the innate immunity, a first line of defense against viruses, bacteria, fungi and worms of any kind that shoots before and makes far fewer questions than exquisitely selective adaptive immunity, or what we usually understand the immune system.

The Academy accredited Hoffmann, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, to discover the system using the powerful genetics of Drosophila, which allowed our species and extrapolate it to open the investigation of a radically new type of antimicrobial agents. The new penicillin Dr. Hoffmann would be a good owner.

Just not Dr. Hoffmann.
. Was a postdoctoral (postdoc) in his laboratory in Strasbourg, Bruno Lemaitre, who decided to make those crucial experiments with Drosophila, and who made them. Hoffmann's main contribution to this research was to oppose it. The revelation of these facts, in a tone and a ton of sense and verse comes from Lemaitre own, but Hoffmann has not denied, despite having had a great chance. He says he "would not be elegant." Resembles neither ignore.

The second story is older, but its resolution is still cooler: an investigation by British journalist Peter Pringle reveals how the young doctoral student Albert Schatz, Rutgers University, discovered streptomycin in 1943, the first effective drug against tuberculosis , and how his thesis, Selman Waksman, took the credit, the Nobel laureate and a paste of Merck for the rights of the patent. Pringle's book, Experiment rise (Walker & Co.), will be released on May 8 in English.

I have told, Watson, that beneath every great man there is always a fellow crushed.